Study design of single‐arm phase II immunotherapy trials with long‐term survivors and random delayed treatment effect

In the traditional study design of a single‐arm phase II cancer clinical trial, the one‐sample log‐rank test has been frequently used. A common practice in sample size calculation is to assume that the event time in the new treatment follows exponential distribution. Such a study design may not be suitable for immunotherapy cancer trials, when both long‐term survivors (or even cured patients from the disease) and delayed treatment effect are present, because exponential distribution is not appropriate to describe such data and consequently could lead to severely underpowered trial. In this research, we proposed a piecewise proportional hazards cure rate model with random delayed treatment effect to design single‐arm phase II immunotherapy cancer trials. To improve test power, we proposed a new weighted one‐sample log‐rank test and provided a sample size calculation formula for designing trials. Our simulation study showed that the proposed log‐rank test performs well and is robust of misspecified weight and the sample size calculation formula also performs well.     

Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design

In clinical trials with survival data, investigators may wish to re-estimate the sample size based on the observed effect size while the trial is ongoing. Besides the inflation of the type-I error rate due to sample size re-estimation, the method for calculating the sample size in an interim analysis should be carefully considered because the data in each stage are mutually dependent in trials with survival data. Although the interim hazard estimate is commonly used to re-estimate the sample size, the estimate can sometimes be considerably higher or lower than the hypothesized hazard by chance. We propose an interim hazard ratio estimate that can be used to re-estimate the sample size under those circumstances. The proposed method was demonstrated through a simulation study and an actual clinical trial as an example. The effect of the shape parameter for the Weibull survival distribution on the sample size re-estimation is presented.     

Sequential tests for non-proportional hazards data

In clinical trials survival endpoints are usually compared using the log-rank test. Sequential methods for the log-rank test and the Cox proportional hazards model are largely reported in the statistical literature. When the proportional hazards assumption is violated the hazard ratio is ill-defined and the power of the log-rank test depends on the distribution of the censoring times. The average hazard ratio was proposed as an alternative effect measure, which has a meaningful interpretation in the case of non-proportional hazards, and is equal to the hazard ratio, if the hazards are indeed proportional. In the present work we prove that the average hazard ratio based sequential test statistics are asymptotically multivariate normal with the independent increments property. This allows for the calculation of group-sequential boundaries using standard methods and existing software. The finite sample characteristics of the new method are examined in a simulation study in a proportional and a non-proportional hazards setting.     

Weighted log‐rank test for time‐to‐event data in immunotherapy trials with random delayed treatment effect and cure rate

A cancer clinical trial with an immunotherapy often has 2 special features, which are patients being potentially cured from the cancer and the immunotherapy starting to take clinical effect after a certain delay time. Existing testing methods may be inadequate for immunotherapy clinical trials, because they do not appropriately take the 2 features into consideration at the same time, hence have low power to detect the true treatment effect. In this paper, we proposed a piece‐wise proportional hazards cure rate model with a random delay time to fit data, and a new weighted log‐rank test to detect the treatment effect of an immunotherapy over a chemotherapy control. We showed that the proposed weight was nearly optimal under mild conditions. Our simulation study showed a substantial gain of power in the proposed test over the existing tests and robustness of the test with misspecified weight. We also introduced a sample size calculation formula to design the immunotherapy clinical trials using the proposed weighted log‐rank test.     

Cancer immunotherapy trial design with delayed treatment effect

A challenge arising in cancer immunotherapy trial design is the presence of a delayed treatment effect wherein the proportional hazard assumption no longer holds true. As a result, a traditional survival trial design based on the standard log‐rank test, which ignores the delayed treatment effect, will lead to substantial loss of statistical power. Recently, a piecewise weighted log‐rank test is proposed to incorporate the delayed treatment effect into consideration of the trial design. However, because the sample size formula was derived under a sequence of local alternative hypotheses, it results in an underestimated sample size when the hazard ratio is relatively small for a balanced trial design and an inaccurate sample size estimation for an unbalanced design. In this article, we derived a new sample size formula under a fixed alternative hypothesis for the delayed treatment effect model. Simulation results show that the new formula provides accurate sample size estimation for both balanced and unbalanced designs.     

Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints and limited sample size

The stratified Cox model is commonly used for stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints. The estimated log hazard ratio is approximately a weighted average of corresponding stratum‐specific Cox model estimates using inverse‐variance weights; the latter are optimal only under the (often implausible) assumption of a constant hazard ratio across strata. Focusing on trials with limited sample sizes (50‐200 subjects per treatment), we propose an alternative approach in which stratum‐specific estimates are obtained using a refined generalized logrank (RGLR) approach and then combined using either sample size or minimum risk weights for overall inference. Our proposal extends the work of Mehrotra et al, to incorporate the RGLR statistic, which outperforms the Cox model in the setting of proportional hazards and small samples. This work also entails development of a remarkably accurate plug‐in formula for the variance of RGLR‐based estimated log hazard ratios. We demonstrate using simulations that our proposed two‐step RGLR analysis delivers notably better results through smaller estimation bias and mean squared error and larger power than the stratified Cox model analysis when there is a treatment‐by‐stratum interaction, with similar performance when there is no interaction. Additionally, our method controls the type I error rate while the stratified Cox model does not in small samples. We illustrate our method using data from a clinical trial comparing two treatments for colon cancer.     

Multiple-arm superiority and non-inferiority designs with various endpoints

Multiple-arm dose-response superiority trials are widely studied for continuous and binary endpoints, while non-inferiority designs have been studied recently in two-arm trials. In this paper, a unified asymptotic formulation of a sample size calculation for k-arm (k>0) trials with different endpoints (continuous, binary and survival endpoints) is derived for both superiority and non-inferiority designs. The proposed method covers the sample size calculation for single-arm and k-arm (k> or =2) designs with survival endpoints, which has not been covered in the statistic literature. A simple, closed form for power and sample size calculations is derived from a contrast test. Application examples are provided. The effect of the contrasts on the power is discussed, and a SAS program for sample size calculation is provided and ready to use.     

Sample size calculation for a proportional hazards mixture cure model with nonbinary covariates

Sample size calculation is a critical issue in clinical trials because a small sample size leads to a biased inference and a large sample size increases the cost. With the development of advanced medical technology, some patients can be cured of certain chronic diseases, and the proportional hazards mixture cure model has been developed to handle survival data with potential cure information. Given the needs of survival trials with potential cure proportions, a corresponding sample size formula based on the log-rank test statistic for binary covariates has been proposed by Wang et al. [25]. However, a sample size formula based on continuous variables has not been developed. Herein, we presented sample size and power calculations for the mixture cure model with continuous variables based on the log-rank method and further modified it by Ewell's method. The proposed approaches were evaluated using simulation studies for synthetic data from exponential and Weibull distributions. A program for calculating necessary sample size for continuous covariates in a mixture cure model was implemented in R.     

Sample size calculations for single-arm survival studies using transformations of the Kaplan–Meier estimator

In single-arm clinical trials with survival outcomes, the Kaplan–Meier estimator and its confidence interval are widely used to assess survival probability and median survival time. Since the asymptotic normality of the Kaplan–Meier estimator is a common result, the sample size calculation methods have not been studied in depth. An existing sample size calculation method is founded on the asymptotic normality of the Kaplan–Meier estimator using the log transformation. However, the small sample properties of the log transformed estimator are quite poor in small sample sizes (which are typical situations in single-arm trials), and the existing method uses an inappropriate standard normal approximation to calculate sample sizes. These issues can seriously influence the accuracy of results. In this paper, we propose alternative methods to determine sample sizes based on a valid standard normal approximation with several transformations that may give an accurate normal approximation even with small sample sizes. In numerical evaluations via simulations, some of the proposed methods provided more accurate results, and the empirical power of the proposed method with the arcsine square-root transformation tended to be closer to a prescribed power than the other transformations. These results were supported when methods were applied to data from three clinical trials.     

Restricted mean survival time as a summary measure of time‐to‐event outcome

Many clinical research studies evaluate a time‐to‐event outcome, illustrate survival functions, and conventionally report estimated hazard ratios to express the magnitude of the treatment effect when comparing between groups. However, it may not be straightforward to interpret the hazard ratio clinically and statistically when the proportional hazards assumption is invalid. In some recent papers published in clinical journals, the use of restricted mean survival time (RMST) or τ ‐year mean survival time is discussed as one of the alternative summary measures for the time‐to‐event outcome. The RMST is defined as the expected value of time to event limited to a specific time point corresponding to the area under the survival curve up to the specific time point. This article summarizes the necessary information to conduct statistical analysis using the RMST, including the definition and statistical properties of the RMST, adjusted analysis methods, sample size calculation, information fraction for the RMST difference, and clinical and statistical meaning and interpretation. Additionally, we discuss how to set the specific time point to define the RMST from two main points of view. We also provide developed SAS codes to determine the sample size required to detect an expected RMST difference with appropriate power and reconstruct individual survival data to estimate an RMST reference value from a reported survival curve.     

A two‐stage phase II clinical trial design with nested criteria for early stopping and efficacy

We propose a two‐stage design for a single arm clinical trial with an early stopping rule for futility. This design employs different endpoints to assess early stopping and efficacy. The early stopping rule is based on a criteria determined more quickly than that for efficacy. These separate criteria are also nested in the sense that efficacy is a special case of, but usually not identical to, the early stopping endpoint. The design readily allows for planning in terms of statistical significance, power, expected sample size, and expected duration. This method is illustrated with a phase II design comparing rates of disease progression in elderly patients treated for lung cancer to rates found using a historical control. In this example, the early stopping rule is based on the number of patients who exhibit progression‐free survival (PFS) at 2 months post treatment follow‐up. Efficacy is judged by the number of patients who have PFS at 6 months. We demonstrate our design has expected sample size and power comparable with the Simon two‐stage design but exhibits shorter expected duration under a range of useful parameter values.     

Quantifying treatment differences in confirmatory trials under non-proportional hazards

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. With the emergence of immunotherapy and novel targeted therapies, departure from the proportional hazard assumption is not rare in nowadays clinical research. Under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio does not have a straightforward clinical interpretation, and the log-rank test is no longer the most powerful statistical test even though it is still valid. Nevertheless, the log-rank test and the hazard ratio are still the primary analysis tools, and traditional approaches such as sample size increase are still proposed to account for the impact of non-proportional hazards. The weighed log-rank test and the test based on the restricted mean survival time (RMST) are receiving a lot of attention as a potential alternative to the log-rank test. We conduct a simulation study comparing the performance and operating characteristics of the log-rank test, the weighted log-rank test and the test based on the RMST, including a treatment effect estimation, under different non-proportional hazards patterns. Results show that, under non-proportional hazards, the hazard ratio and weighted hazard ratio have no straightforward clinical interpretation whereas the RMST ratio can be interpreted regardless of the proportional hazards assumption. In terms of power, the RMST achieves a similar performance when compared to the log-rank test.     

Blinded sample size re‐estimation in superiority and noninferiority trials: bias versus variance in variance estimation

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures based on the one‐sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re‐estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re‐estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one‐sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re‐estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one‐sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Properties of the weighted log‐rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. This assumption not only affects the analysis part but also the sample size calculation. The presence of delayed effects causes a change in the hazard ratio while the trial is ongoing since at the beginning we do not observe any difference between treatment arms, and after some unknown time point, the differences between treatment arms will start to appear. Hence, the proportional hazards assumption no longer holds, and both sample size calculation and analysis methods to be used should be reconsidered. The weighted log‐rank test allows a weighting for early, middle, and late differences through the Fleming and Harrington class of weights and is proven to be more efficient when the proportional hazards assumption does not hold. The Fleming and Harrington class of weights, along with the estimated delay, can be incorporated into the sample size calculation in order to maintain the desired power once the treatment arm differences start to appear. In this article, we explore the impact of delayed effects in group sequential and adaptive group sequential designs and make an empirical evaluation in terms of power and type‐I error rate of the of the weighted log‐rank test in a simulated scenario with fixed values of the Fleming and Harrington class of weights. We also give some practical recommendations regarding which methodology should be used in the presence of delayed effects depending on certain characteristics of the trial.     

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis‐testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis‐testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease‐related agitation.     

A Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization for 2‐sided hypothesis test

Bayesian sequential and adaptive randomization designs are gaining popularity in clinical trials thanks to their potentials to reduce the number of required participants and save resources. We propose a Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization rates so as to more efficiently attribute newly recruited patients to different treatment arms. In this paper, we consider 2‐arm clinical trials. Patients are allocated to the 2 arms with a randomization rate to achieve minimum variance for the test statistic. Algorithms are presented to calculate the optimal randomization rate, critical values, and power for the proposed design. Sensitivity analysis is implemented to check the influence on design by changing the prior distributions. Simulation studies are applied to compare the proposed method and traditional methods in terms of power and actual sample sizes. Simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design can obtain greater power and/or cost smaller actual sample size than the traditional Bayesian sequential design. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with the Bayesian sequential design without adaptive randomization in terms of sample sizes. The proposed method can further reduce required sample size.     

Sample size re‐estimation incorporating prior information on a nuisance parameter

Prior information is often incorporated informally when planning a clinical trial. Here, we present an approach on how to incorporate prior information, such as data from historical clinical trials, into the nuisance parameter–based sample size re‐estimation in a design with an internal pilot study. We focus on trials with continuous endpoints in which the outcome variance is the nuisance parameter. For planning and analyzing the trial, frequentist methods are considered. Moreover, the external information on the variance is summarized by the Bayesian meta‐analytic‐predictive approach. To incorporate external information into the sample size re‐estimation, we propose to update the meta‐analytic‐predictive prior based on the results of the internal pilot study and to re‐estimate the sample size using an estimator from the posterior. By means of a simulation study, we compare the operating characteristics such as power and sample size distribution of the proposed procedure with the traditional sample size re‐estimation approach that uses the pooled variance estimator. The simulation study shows that, if no prior‐data conflict is present, incorporating external information into the sample size re‐estimation improves the operating characteristics compared to the traditional approach. In the case of a prior‐data conflict, that is, when the variance of the ongoing clinical trial is unequal to the prior location, the performance of the traditional sample size re‐estimation procedure is in general superior, even when the prior information is robustified. When considering to include prior information in sample size re‐estimation, the potential gains should be balanced against the risks.     

Attenuation of treatment effect due to measurement variability in assessment of progression-free survival

For normally distributed data analyzed with linear models, it is well known that measurement error on an independent variable leads to attenuation of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. However, for time‐to‐event variables such as progression‐free survival (PFS), the effect of the measurement variability in the underlying measurements defining the event is less well understood. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the impact of measurement variability in tumor assessment on the treatment effect hazard ratio for PFS and on the median PFS time, for different tumor assessment frequencies. Our results show that scan measurement variability can cause attenuation of the treatment effect (i.e. the hazard ratio is closer to one) and that the extent of attenuation may be increased with more frequent scan assessments. This attenuation leads to inflation of the type II error. Therefore, scan measurement variability should be minimized as far as possible in order to reveal a treatment effect that is closest to the truth. In disease settings where the measurement variability is shown to be large, consideration may be given to inflating the sample size of the study to maintain statistical power. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Two‐stage phase II survival trial design

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression‐free survival or event‐free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two‐stage single‐arm phase II trials with a time‐to‐event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two‐stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two‐stage design can be routinely used for single‐arm phase II trial designs with a time‐to‐event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two‐stage design for the binary outcome.     

Predicting analysis time in events‐driven clinical trials using accumulating time‐to‐event surrogate information

For clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints, predicting the accrual of the events of interest with precision is critical in determining the timing of interim and final analyses. For example, overall survival (OS) is often chosen as the primary efficacy endpoint in oncology studies, with planned interim and final analyses at a pre‐specified number of deaths. Often, correlated surrogate information, such as time‐to‐progression (TTP) and progression‐free survival, are also collected as secondary efficacy endpoints. It would be appealing to borrow strength from the surrogate information to improve the precision of the analysis time prediction. Currently available methods in the literature for predicting analysis timings do not consider utilizing the surrogate information. In this article, using OS and TTP as an example, a general parametric model for OS and TTP is proposed, with the assumption that disease progression could change the course of the overall survival. Progression‐free survival, related both to OS and TTP, will be handled separately, as it can be derived from OS and TTP. The authors seek to develop a prediction procedure using a Bayesian method and provide detailed implementation strategies under certain assumptions. Simulations are performed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. An application to a real study is also provided. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.